Monday, May 6, 2019

Rachel Held Evans– Not recommended. There are so many ways Rachel deviates from orthodox, biblical Christianity, It would be impossible to describe all of them, even briefly. Rachel denies the Bible’s inerrancy as well as its authority. She rejects the Bible’s teaching that a conscious knowledge of and faith in Christ is necessary for salvation (inclusivism). She supports homosexual “marriage” as well as the idea of calling practicing, unrepentant homosexuals Christians and including them in church membership. She mercilessly twists and misuses Scripture to the extent that it would be comical for its ridiculousness were it not so blasphemous. (Denny Burk has an excellent article that covers all of these issues in more detail.) Rachel believes in evolution. Rachel has, at best, mixed feelings about abortion, supporting the funding of Planned Parenthood and decrying “abstinence only” teaching in sex ed classes. Rachel is a staunch feminist, egalitarian, and promoter of “gender equality” in the church. Pick a biblical issue or doctrine. Rachel is almost certain to be on the unbiblical side of it.

Evans left her own, dishonoring, epitaph. To you who are angry at those publishing the truth while also offering proper condolences, the person with whom you should be angry is Rachel Held Evans and yourself. She created this monument of shame and warning people not to go near the garbage dump, whether in sympathy while she was living or now dead, is love. To hate those pointing to this heap of ignominious work which could still harm others, is to join her in perpetuating these lies against God’s truth.

There are no noble thoughts to be had with respect to Rachel Held Evans deliberate effort to become a polarizing figure in Evangelicalism, as the Washington Post reported, with her stream of destructive error. No one is denying anything she may have done aside from these things such as the mothering of her children and her commitment to her husband and family but the despised critics of Evans have expressed shared grief regarding the loss to her children, husband and family which you clearly ignore.

Rachel Held Evans, however, did not assemble her notoriety through calling attention to any common virtues rather, she chose her rebellion to sound doctrine to be the platform on which she would rise and now that she has died, it is upon this platform is seen in her expiration. How dare any of you condemn those rightly warning others of the very hill she built and upon which she died. She called attention to it day and night and now you detest those who do so in her death? Again, that was Evans' doing, not the scribes in speaking of her life and death.

And whether you know it or not, your outrage only confirms that was a barrow of scandal and disgrace otherwise, you would be silent and without protest. This was her endeavor of which she was proud. And now, when others call attention to it in her death as part of her identity you are angry? Again, shame on you and how dare you? You’re either a self-righteous, virtue signaling Pharisee or you are simply revealing the truth about your feelings while pretending, otherwise.

This was her mask, the one she wore and you want it hidden in her death? Did Rachel Held Evans tell you to hide this upon her death, to stay quiet about this thing she spent most of her energy creating? You all have no idea what you are doing other than pretending to care. You are clueless, absolutely clueless.

Rachel Held Evans built her mountain of error. She lived on it and made it her image. That is who she was. What you want is to lie and pretend she was something else. You need to think through just what it is you are doing and repent.

No one is happy at the loss to her family but her legacy of shame is her doing, not those rightly warning others but now they must warn other about you who wish the make secret, much of the life of Rachel Held Evans and pretend otherwise. God save us from those who would practice such deception and influence others in this manner.

Monday, March 25, 2019

For legions of Christians (Ligons of Christians in some places and yes, this is inside humor if you aren’t aware of Ligon Duncan’s recent games on the matter) the big question often being proposed for them to answer is whether or not same-sex attraction, abbreviated SSA, is sinful. The problem, of course, is with the question, itself. You wouldn’t know that, however, because it is likely that you have been conditioned to react with a defensive posture on these issues instead of slowing down the process and investigating the questions, themselves.

Now, as to the answer to the question it is rather clear, yes, same-sex attraction is sinful. It is a perverted sexual lust pattern.

If the answer to the question is an obvious YES, why, then, is this question being asked? Why, repeatedly, is it even being debated?

I’ll tell you why. The reason is because if we can debate an issue as if its fundamental but unspoken premise is valid, then the questioner has basically won half the battle. And in this case, the battle is for the homosexuality’s lust pattern to be validated as a thing left to stay undisturbed by the new birth in Christ.

But why would a Christian want to do that?

A Christian would want to do that for any number of reasons but generally to appease himself or herself or some other person or group.

A non-Christian, however, who is under the misconception that he is a Christian, would want to do this simply because of his or her spiritually unenlightened mind which is left to its own devices. In this case, it is simply being conformed by the world’s ideologies. Thus, this person would integrate homosexuality or its slow acceptance in various forms, into his/her theology, believing, of course, that this is a form of Godly enlightenment when, in fact, it is just the opposite.

I might elaborate further in a bit on this but it is essential I get to the issue at hand which is asking the wrong question. So let me give an example: _____________________________Question: Is stealing a Toyota, sinful?

Problem: Embedded within the question is a subtle shift in value assumption. That is to say, the question suggests, often unbeknownst to the mind of its audience, that there is a possibility that certain cars could be stolen without committing a sin.

_____________________________Fundamentally, however, the ultimate goal is a ploy which is to phrase the questions so as to introduce the consideration of a special case.

Sinful Desires and Lust Patterns

Every human being has sinful desires including those who have been born again in Christ, thus, spiritually alive and reconciled to God. Each person has what are called lust patterns. A lust pattern is developed in a human being as he or she lives life, repeatedly enticed by certain sinful wants and even as a Christian, fulfilling those sinful desires. Let’s be clear, the desires are sinful, themselves. Colossians 3:5 states: Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desires, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.

In this passage there are some key words relating to this issues of homosexual attraction which is given the cloaking label, SSA. The most prominent, here is πάθος/pathos. This is referring to a way of thinking and desiring from those thoughts, which are not guided by God. Essentially, carnal or fleshly lust.

This is precisely what Same-Sex Attraction is, fleshly lust. It is of little difference than a man lusting after another man’s wife. Possibly we should accommodate this, too, with the abbreviation OMWA (Other Man’s Wife Attraction). I say that because this kind of lusting actually happens to Christian men and quite regularly. But most of them know that such sexual attraction is not something led by God rather, it is πάθος/pathos.

And the appropriate response is to confess this adulterous lust to God and resume walking in the Spirit which ensures one does not abide in this pattern rather, they now walk by the desires of the Spirit.

Will it happen again? Sure. But we, as Christians, do not deal with our sinful desires by legitimizing them, we confess them to God the Father so that we may maintain fellowship and the fullness of the Spirit. 1 John 1:9 says: If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Also Ephesians 4:30 instructs us, Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Permitting sinful lusts to live in perpetuity is not only sinning, because you are being led by πάθος/pathos instead of God’s Spirit, but it results in broken fellowship with God the Father and the grieving of the Holy Spirit in you which results in you not being filled/led by the desires of the Spirit.

But What about My Lust Pattern. How Am I Supposed to Live with It?

As I said earlier, every Christian has a lust pattern. That is to say, he or she has their favorite ways of sinning based on the unique make up of their flesh and personality along with influences throughout their lives.

Let’s take Hannah as an example. She grew up in a home where the father was not respected by the mother. She picked up that nasty way of approaching male/female romance and has developed a lust pattern of henpecking dominance over her boyfriend and potential mate. In fact, this is her trend in life with most men. And this is only one aspect of Hannah’s sin pattern developed in a semi-dysfunctional home. As a Christian it is likely that she will be combating this pattern most of her life.

Now let’s look at Jason. Jason had access to the internet early on in life with little supervision. He quickly found pornography and through adolescence and into adulthood used pornography for entertainment and fulfilling various sexual lusts. In doing so, he not only established a pornographic lust pattern but as well, certain deviants sexual tastes. But now he is born again and seeking to live for Christ but those sin patterns visit him quite regularly.

Finally, Rebecca grew up in a home with a gossipy mother and a father who did not bring to her attention the inappropriateness of this but further, passively went along. Becky, as her friends call her, was trained to pry into the business of others and of course develop various adjudication skills. Eventually, Becky became a heavy hitter in the gossip ring herself and regularly calls her mother. for long gossip sessions.

But recently Rebecca got saved and her potential husband has brought this to her attention and she agrees, it is sinful but also confesses it is hard not to snoop into people’s business because this is the way she has lived for so long as well as being highly judgmental. She has a sin pattern that will seek to creep into every aspect of her desires and life unless she decides to yield to the desires of the Spirit of God. The Fullness of the Spirit is the Answer

The answer to sinful desires is not throwing our hands up and saying, “Well, that’s just the way I am”, and then walking in the flesh. Look, if you have a homosexual lust pattern, that is your lust pattern but the answer is not identifying with it as who you are nor legitimizing it in a covert fashion by asking if it is a sinful desire. Yes, it is a sinful desire.

Lusting after another man’s wife is a sinful desire and believe you me, there are plenty of other men’s wives who, merely by existing, stimulate the lust pattern of other men. She hasn’t done anything wrong but the man with the lust pattern who fails to confess lust like that when it occurs, continues in his sin, out of fellowship with God and not led by the Holy Spirit.

Greed is another lust pattern. Some Christians have a problem with greed and will all of their lives. The answer is not to say, “Well, I guess I am just resigned to having Greed Attraction.

The answer to all of our sin patterns is our identity with and in Christ who has deposited his Spirit in us so that we may be led by the Spirit and not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. We put to death our sinful wants and *homosexuality is one of those sinful wants. We identify πάθος/pathos as a no-go path, a no-go identity and take the path of being filled by thus, led by, God the Holy Spirit with his wants and desires.

*(As a note. Homosexual desires are not a spiritual problem, they are a psychological dysfunction and can be successfully resolved through psychological therapy in many cases. Thus, this sin or lust pattern, may be something you can actually significantly minimized if not completely resolve, by way of psychological therapy. But, resolving the psychological issue causing homosexual lust does not make one filled with the Spirit. It simply resolves a psychological dysfunction.)Every Christian Has the Same Problem with the Same Solution

If you are experiencing a homosexual lust pattern, be clear, that is sinful. But you must remember, every Christians faces his or her own lust pattern(s). Imagine a Christian reared in a debauched environment with all kinds of psychological issues in which the flesh repeatedly beckons him or her to endless lusts due to patterns of it developed while growing up. They are in far worse circumstances in that respect but the answer to homosexual lust or any lust is always the same. It is sinful, it is to be confessed and then one is to walk in the fullness of God the Holy Spirit thus, being led by his Godly desires.

Will the flesh fight back? Ha! Are you kidding? Of course the flesh will certainly fight back for its wants. That is what sin does which resides in our flesh. The sin nature originates in the flesh and while we live in this flesh, we will always experience that problem.

Asking the wrong question is where one starts on the path toward a wrong answer. I hope this is of value to my readers.

Saturday, March 16, 2019

For those of you unfamiliar with the man sitting next to President Donald Trump in the picture above, it is Terry McAuliffe, the recent former Governor of Virginia (2014-2018) who is, of course, a Democrat. McAuliffe isn't, though, just another Democrat, he is an exceptionally shrewd and resourceful power-player in the Democrat party and much of this stems from his business and political acumen which is superior to most.

Born in 1957, McAuliffe began a business as a teenager, tarring driveways, before entering Catholic University and then graduating from Georgetown Law School. Immediately afterward, in 1980, McAuliffe took a job with the Carter campaign as national finance director with significant success.These events, along with McAuliffe's substantial achievements in his business enterprises, led him to become a co-chair campaign manager for Bill Clinton's re-election in '96 and then a chairman for Hillary in her 2008 bid. Sandwiched in-between this, in 2000 Gov. McAuliffe began his tenure as the chair for the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic National Convention from which the party benefited richly in regards to McAuliffe's financial and voting re-alignment strategies. And as mentioned, from 2014-2018, he served as Virginia's governor.But never-minding Terry McAuliffe's resume, there are some conspicuous reasons which make McAuliffe, probably the best match-up against President Trump of all the candidates heard from so far. Point by point, with regard to personality, style and temperament, he is almost Donald Trump's charismatic equal, possible what one might call the anti-Trump (this is not a slur by any means, just a metaphor).And debating? Gov. McAuliffe not only holds his own, he excels. Unlike many, probably most, of the early Democrat hopefuls, McAuliffe's views as expressed in speeches and interviews but as in view here, in debates, will and do come from centrist Democrat positions. While likely holding to more leftist positions at times, he rejects certain extremes which his contemporaries foolishly support with vocal zeal these days.In the front, at this moment with the Democrat presidential hopefuls are the noise makers. Beto will disappear, he's an impostor as it is and a poor candidate to boot. As to Kamala Harris, this is a stunt, she doesn't really want to be president, are you kidding? And Cory "Spartacus" Booker? Hardy, har har. There is a long list of wannabes and Pocahontases hoping their early sprints will somehow enable them to survive the kind of scrutiny and vetting process few survive but for most, this is simply for another end, not an actually race for the gold key.

McAuliffe not only survives, he thrives in this arena. He is a real Democrat with real experience along with the maturity, pedigree, success and appealing charm which may be the necessary formula for winning against President Trump in 2020.

Who will his running mate be? Possibly, this woman:

This is Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, of Hawaii. She is not only a minority on more than one level, which satiates many Democrat appetites, but she is also an Iraqi war vet and, of course, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives with a so-far, flourishing history within her party.Though she has announced her 2020 presidential campaign bid, this is likely simply an effort to raise her national profile and open the door to the the V.P. slot. There is a great deal to like about Gabbard if you are a Democrat or even a left-of-center libertarian (she endorsed Sanders in 2016, possibly with the future in mind and not wanting to scar herself with a Hillary nod). As well, she speaks as a modern middle-of-the-road Democrat which isn't saying much other than she sounds reasonable in her presentations though, for example, she supports Medicare for all which many libertarians may find unacceptable. This, however, is likely not a deal-breaker. And obviously Gabbard is an attractive candidate, as shallow as that may sound this is the world in which we live. Added to that, her age gives her an advantage with a younger voting block, one in which 50% prefer socialistic ideas.If This Is The CaseIf the set-up ends up as I have postulated, it would make Donald Trump vulnerable, particularly with the Vice Presidential candidate. V.P. Mike Pence, while a man to be appreciated for many virtues, too often comes across as stiff and almost as boring as watching paint dry. There have been questions raised, already, some months ago, which speculated that Pence may not be on the ticket for 2020. It is no secret that President Trump gave to former S.C. Governor Nikki Haley, the U.N. Ambassadorship job with the future in mind. And upon her announcement of leaving the post, she made it clear she would be all-in for Trump's re-election bid. While this would be unusual, would it or could it be possible that this is to be the new second?It might be unorthodox but let's be frank, President Trump is a pragmatist, he likes winning, not following everyone else's arbitrary rules and if believes the better running mate is Haley, it would not be surprising if he negotiated some kind of agreement with Mike Pence on this issue. But let me be clear, this portion of my prognostication is simply a possibility and not as likely as the McAuliffe/Gabbard ticket but, it would be interesting and dynamic.To gain Haley is to keep much of the Evangelical vote but as well, it is to also gain an appreciably successful female governor and stateswoman with international politics as part of her profile.On the other hand, to lose Pence in such a manner, no matter how even Mike Pence might present his not choosing to be on the ticket in 2020 with the kindest of words and unimpeachable continued campaigning for and support of Trump, this could create distrust among some Evangelicals and beyond.Never-Trumpers are a self-righteous group. That is what they share in common and a move like this would only be an excuse to hate President Trump even further, a childish but all too real scenario. Final ThoughtsPresident Donald Trump's campaign was the perfect storm. He had a bevy of dumb Republicans who believed their own prevarications only to be shell-shocked by a man who was used to writing his own rules because he could see through everyone else's dishonesty and was not about to play by their duplicitous regulations.And in the national election, Hillary Clinton was as unappealing a candidate as the Democrat party could find but the devil be damned, it was her turn and so, as history now informs us, before Bernie Sanders had raised his first dollar, Clinton had already won the nomination. Given that sense of entitlement and her own grotesque personality and contempt for the rest of the world, Donald Trump was the man for the hour and the only man.In 2020 it will be different. President Trump has faced the realities of certain limits which are placed upon him as President thus, like all politicians, he will be liable for unfulfilled campaign promises and a mainstream media colluding with tech giants, to do everything in their power to defeat him. They were caught off guard, they won't be again. If there is anyone who has a realistic chance, it is Terry McAuliffe. He is equally as savvy, energetic and intelligent as Donald Trump. But, if there is anyone who can match Terry McAuliffe and more, it is the man with the magic touch, President Trump himself, who has made a life of winning but beyond that, his love for this country and her values compels him with convictions to which no politician can correspond.

Alex's Tiny Bio

I am a "pedestrian Christian" and am enjoying my journey, particularly with my dear partner and spouse. Our family banner reads:
"Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God." Psalm 20:7. At the bottom of the blog you will find more about The Pedestrian Christian. To contact me please use the comments section.

Search This Blog

The Pedestrian Christian's Path

I have been a believer in Christ for over 30 years and along the way my path has introduced me to some most unimaginable experiences. And from that I have come away with the greatest of all certainties; in the end where I am headed is where I came from which is Christ Jesus. So with some experience, a teaching gift and mild writing abilities my objective is to take such assets and hope to be an illuminating source for others.

I am a Protestant with baptistic and Lutheran leanings (though I reject any form of sacramental regeneration) with dispensationalistic views. I have an undergraduate degree in Biblical studies from which I have aggressively but colloquially pursued additional theological development and training.

I formerly inclined myself toward Reformed theology and Calvinism but now, through comprehensive exegetical/theological studies, reject the rationalism of Augustinian/Reformed/Calvinistic (ARC) theologies as well as certain by-products of these two centers.

However, with that said I also recognize that no one school of theology is without weaknesses and many schools offer virtuous contributions in areas where there are no contentions. Therefore, I acknowledge the augmentation of many schools and their theologians which are of other persuasions seeing that we have many things in common. So I use many sources with discretion while possibly taking issue with these on other occasions.

I generally prefer a polemic style in my arguments but do try to engage apologetically often enough to endear my writings to a broader audience. However, as you read you will find most often my theological measures being contentions with specific teachings by either a school or Teacher of Scripture.

I also participate in social and political treatments but far less often than those of theology. And as for the regulation of my contributions, I do not anticipate having time for constant contributions but those I do make I will strive to endow them with material which is satisfying, challenging and engaging.